1. MRE Rations in All-Polymeric Pouches and why would we want to go there! Tom Dunn Printpack Inc. Atlanta, Ga

2. Why do we wanna go there? l Look at current MRE packaging l Really look at current MRE packaging! l Look at current MRE logistics l Consider novel food processing techniques l Assess their impact on packaging requirements  Identify critical success factors for this packaging  Consider alternatives for achieving this mission! l Review results to date l Anticipate future development

3. A look at current MRE packaging He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils; for time is the greatest innovator. Things alter for the worse spontaneously, if they be not altered for the better designedly. ~Francis Bacon

5. Really look at current MRE packaging LENGTH WIDTH DEPTH

6. Foil Pouch Lamination: Entrees Polyolefin Oriented PET Aluminum Foil Oriented BON Light, Oxygen, Water Vapor Barrier/ Stiffness Puncture Resistance Pouch Sealing / shock absorbance Puncture Resistance, Heat resistance

7. MRE Logistics ProcessPackagingStoreTransportStoreDeploy

8. Novel Food Processes: Impact Factors PROCESS Minutes @ 121ºC PRESSURE (psi)STATUS Retort~40-5013Commercial MWS~535Developmental PATS~5100,000Developmental HPP Max: ~40- 100ºC 70,000Commercial eHPP Max: ~40- 100ºC 150,000Research

9. Process/Packaging Impact PROCESSPACKAGING IMPACT RetortHigh thermal stability MWSThermal stability; microwave transparency PATSlow volatiles; conformable; thermal stability; HPP low volatiles; conformable eHPP low volatiles; conformable; tbd

10. Process/Logistics Impact PROCESSLOGISTICS IMPACT Retort MWS PATS HPP eHPP Adapt the Packaging!

11. Adapt the packaging to microwave sterilization! PROCESSPackaging Success Factors MWSMicrowave transparent Light barrier Oxygen barrier Water vapor barrier Resistant to transient high temperatures Stiffness Weight

12. Plan of Attack: Packaging for MWS FACTOROBJECTIVE MW transparent Non-foil and ? Light100% Opaque or ? OxygenNSRDEC 0.01 cc-day/100 sq. in./atmosphere or ? Water vaporNSRDEC 0.06 gm-day/100 sq. in./atmosphere or ? Temp Resist121ºC for 7 minutes StiffnessEqual to foil pouch WeightEqual to/less than foil pouch CostEqual to/less than foil pouch Other Burst, puncture resistance, etc. equal to/greater than foil pouch

13. Tactics OBJECTIVEAPPROACH MW transparentDevelop assessment method; assess candidates LightDetermine scope of need; assess candidates OxygenNSRDEC target Water vaporNSRDEC target Temp ResistFamiliar polymers (heat set & melting point) Stiffnessoriented films with modulus ~ foil WeightFamiliar polymers with density less than foil CostMap territory around above targets OtherFamiliar polymers

14. Light Barrier Results l Virginia Tech review of photodegradation chemistry of MRE foods  Organoleptic and nutritional values at risk  Wide spectrum (UV-visible light) of active harmful light energy l Virginia Tech development of lab model to assess light barrier effectiveness  Olive oil and yogurt as model foods  Hexanal as target indicator  Link hexanal generation to UV-Vis light absorption of packaging materials l Design light barrier in packaging materials  Opacified polymer layer(s)  Opacified adhesive layer(s) l Confirm effectiveness with accelerated shelf life assessments

15. Microwave Transparency Results l WSU adapted dielectric properties food method to flexible packaging  e’: ability of a material to store electromagnetic energy  e“: ability of a material to dissipate electric energy as heat l Carbon black  Limited FDA food-contact approval  Known microwave absorption Carbon Black Clear 1 opaque adhesive Figure A: Dielectric properties

16. Oxygen Barrier Results l Limited success with nanocomposites and multilayer coextrusions  Nanocomposites couple with MV energy  Coextrusions will play a role. (machine/material complexities slow down) l Available films and polymers have weaknesses  Moisture sensitivity  Coating durability

17. Water Vapor Barrier Results l Simple polyolefins best MVTR providers  Strong thickness impact  Coatings the other alternative l High Barrier WVTR Coating durability issue l “Saran” Coating presents environmental negatives

18. Other Results Temp ResistSame polymers inside and out StiffnessAll comparable to foil WeightAll less than foil CostTrade offs with respect to performance OtherComparable burst, puncture, etc

19. Pouch laminations: Foil v. Polymeric Polyolefin Oriented PET Aluminum Foil Oriented BON Polyolefin Oriented PET Coated PET Coated BON Barrier Coating

20. Pouch laminations: Foil v. Polymeric Polyolefin Oriented PET Coated PET Coated BON Light, Oxygen, Water Vapor Barrier/ Stiffness Puncture Resistance Pouch Sealing / shock absorbance Puncture Resistance, Heat resistance

21. Arrive where we started and know the place for the first time

22. Future Developments/Packaging 1)On-pack Time & Temperature Integrator 2)Shelf life modeling of logistics factors  Sensitivity analysis for barrier levels  Contribution to shelf life of secondary packaging 3)Microwave interaction with polymeric chemistry 4)Within pouch-type/between process shelf life comparisons 5)Impact of packaging on nutritional factors over time  Cross process technology comparison  Foil- and Polymeric- pouches comparison 6)Failure analysis: packaging volatiles during HPP 7)Definition of Quality Plan for MWS pouches 8)Technology transfer to commercial applications

23. Thank you for your attention! Any questions, Now? Later? tdunn@printpack.com tdunn@printpack.com